It's about the aesthetics of the environment, Big Bend National Park-type vistas of the Rio Grande, the seizing of property from Americans through eminent domain, the "exile" of American land on the Mexican side, and the sealing off of corridors used by animals.

It's like that ad were made precisely for me. Here's what I blogged in February 2016:

Why aren't we talking about the environmental impact of the wall Trump says he will build?

I raised the subject in the comments to the earlier post about the wall. I said: "Am I the only one who worries about the wall as aesthetically and ecologically troubling?" John Henry said:

Why aesthetically troubling? You have no idea yet what it will look like, do you? I suspect that in some placed it may be a wall, in others a fence, in others natural barriers. No wall is needed when the border is at the base of a 100' cliff, for example.

Ecologically troubling? You are the first person I have ever heard ask that. Could you elaborate?

I think you are the first person I've seen have trouble with the what the wall looks like, too.

I said that I was concerned about "a wall slicing through such a long huge length of" of America, "imping[ing] on nature so brutally" and that I worried about "the plants and animals that flow back and forth within those areas." I didn't remember hearing anyone else bring this up, but I had no trouble finding this Newsweek article from a few days ago: "THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE U.S.-MEXICO BORDER WALL." There's a photograph with the caption: "Javelina (Pecari tajacu) turn away after looking for 100 yards for a place to cross the U.S.-Mexico border fence near the San Pedro river corridor in Arizona in July 2008."...

ADDED: This is the greatest American presidential ad ever made:

Here's some of the competition. Beto O'Rourke is in the game, and you are a fool if you underestimate what he is doing with this ad. Right now is the time to take him seriously. I can see the impulse in the comments section is to deny the seriousness of the power of this message. You are losing right now.

the simple solution to the environmental problems is to build the wall a mile or two South of the Rio Grande. After all, we TOLD the Mexican's that they would pay...After all, They Started this war (like the last) with their invasions

Once the wall is built, you could get someone to paint murals on it, picturing fun animals like squirrels, bears, rattlesnakes, the little known horny frog, and other such shit. It would be really pleasing to look at.

I've traveled pretty extensively in the Southwest. Those pretty pics were mostly taken far north of the border. From east Texas to the mountains on the California border, the border land is a flat desert gravel pit. It's not romantic at all.

Note that the Powerpoint deliberately substitutes the beautiful landscapes of northern Arizona and New Mexico. That's rather deceptive.

Sometime, if you are watching a movie made in the sixties or seventies, look at the lawns, at the grass growing around buildings. It wasn’t perfectly manicured like it generally is today. If we had a wall, and kept out illegal workers, we would have to go back to those unmanicured lawns in so many places. What would our gated communities look like without armies of dirt cheap workers? The horror, the horror.

Of course, the ad ignores the environmental impacts of millions of additional people (legal and illegal immigrants and their children) living a USA lifestyle, driving cars, urban sprawl, etc. The US population that was here in 1965 would've stabilized around 200 million and be in slightly negative population growth now.

The aesthetic of environmentalism is itself an artifact of a particular culture, one that doesn't exist in India or Central America, as any travel in those areas outside of tourist compounds will attest.

No word on the environmental degradation caused by the massive population growth via immigration Beto's donors are also hot for? How about what drug cartels have been doing to national parks and monuments (e.g., Guadalupe Mountains and Sequoia) for years now? I can think of a few private property owners who aren't thrilled with the environmental stewardship ethos of the migrants and drug runners crossing their property with impunity.

Judging from the comments on the twitter feed, though, it's a good ad. Getting cat ladies all aflutter about butterfly habitats works; trying to get them to think about anything longer-term or higher-order is a waste of time and money.

If people like Beto and Obama had done fuck all about illegal immigration for the last couple of decades besides waving them in with both hands, we could have a conversation about alternative ways of curbing illegal immigrants migration.

But Fake Hispanic wants their votes and Obama screamed to 'bring your kids and you can stay' for 8 years. And he turned ICE off with his phone and his pen.

Democrats have ZERO CREDIBILITY on this issue. Smug Schumer cackling at the Oval Office meeting does not give anyone a sense of good faith.

For Rich Women who don't actually travel but care more about aesthetics than economics (I got mine!) or people, this is effective.

For me, it is Beto looking for 'any excuse to continue illegal immigration'.

Believe me, we are very conscious that lots of people don’t think with their adult brains, the one that factors in consequences, that is responsible for logic and planning. No, most people seem to think with their reptile brains, the ones that react immediately with emotion.

This is why people are deaf to the argument that the best way to minimize deaths from people dragging their children across the desert is to take away their incentives and make it harder for them. Remember the computer in Star Trek, the one that could figure out anything? “Computer! Design me a perfect solution to the problem illegal immigration!” Well, that was fiction. It’s child like fun to pretend that that’s possible.

If you're correct that this is an extremely effective ad, I suspect that it will only be extremely effective for pulling back right leaning Democrats and peeling off left leaning Republicans who were already looking for a reason to vote the way their friends want them to vote. When it comes to the next presidential campaign, I'd be surprised if this moves the needle to the left enough to offset all the rightward movement caused by things like the Kavanaugh hearings.

The GOP needs to counter with an ad pointing out that they've tried less obnoxious methods to deal with criminal aliens - like E Verify and targeted deportations - and that Democrats have fought them every step of the way. The Democrats can have a more nuanced approach to dealing with the problem any time they want it, but since they're actively preventing that, the grown-ups in the room will have to take a more direct approach.

You Trumpsters are acting like the people who didn't take Trump seriously when they had the chance.

Yes, we know Ann, he is very good looking and he has the backing of the hyper wealthy. The last gigolo that ran, well, the attribute that attracted two extremely wealthy women to marry him didn’t really come across on camera, but this gigolo is telegenic to a fault. He’s our own Macron.

Beto can do a better ad than that. He can point out that global warming will be caused by trapping heat south of the wall. Nature's heat needs to be free to circulate up to the rich and natural northern lands. That's my thoughts on it. And all Deniers ought to be arrested.

The way to victory for Republicans is to get into the black communities and communicate the good things that Trump has done for them, largely in the realm of employment and protecting them from competition of illegals. I think Trump should be in Detroit, Philadelphia, St Louis, etc, dealing with the thugs from AntiFa, etc. Knock one of the legs out from the Democrat stool.

I was about to make the same point as Samuri Buzzard. In economics, they talk about what is seen and what is unseen. Building a boeder wall will have ecological impacts. What doesn’t? Having millions of people come to our country will also have ecooogical (and economical) impacts. More people means more pollution and garbage, more demand for housing, schools, food, and social services. Rich liberals living in their gated communities and walled houses don’t have to see the negative impacts. Their private walls are different because shut up.

I don't think anybody is arguing against the idea that he has a good shot in a crowded primary. This should be targeted more at the left for the moment (and Bernie supporters are currently targeting him).

Anyway the simple retort to the aesthetics argument is that it's a matter of necessity, no different than the Hoover Dam or interstate system. The main issue is that no Dem. can argue in favor of stopping illegal immigration if they want to win the primary. The activist base of the left has gone whole hog on open borders and primaries are determined by the base.

As for the eminent domain issue, well nobody who cares about the issue in that particular region is likely to vote Dem. and they may actually be willing to accept it in this case if it helps keep illegals from destroying their property.

Assuming he is the candidate I don't know how it'll play in the general, but by then I figure he'll have moved to the center and started pretending to oppose illegal immigration.

Sorry about the first para in my comment above just repeating points others already got in. (Weren't there when I started my comment; moving slow this morning.)

But Althouse is right: "This is an extremely effective ad. Don't bury your head in the sand." You know and I know that it's self-serving bullshit, but it's effective bullshit. Scoffing at it, or even attempting to carefully and logically explain, to the people susceptible to this sort of bullshit, why lack of serious border control is a disaster for the environment, isn't going to get their votes.

I've been down to the southern border in Arizona. It is nothing but a trash dump for miles north. A wall would help stop the littering. Trump needs to make a video of the trash, and the dead bodies everywhere in the desert.

If only there were a less visible and more effective way to deter human traffic over the border....

Yes, the solution that dare not speak it’s name! E-Verify. If Trump gets that, it would be a complete vindication of The Art of the Deal. However, it doesn’t appear that that’s what he’s after. Republicans don’t want to hand over economic power to low skill workers and Democrats are too busy selling them out.

Cerebral blood flowCiliary beat frequencyCatholic Biblical FederationChesapeake Bay FoundationCooperative Baptist FellowshipHonda CBF series - A series of motorcycles.A popular internet acronym, which stands for 'Can't be Fucked'"C.B.F (Chrome Black Future)", a Nevermore song from its 1995 debut album

There is no plan to build fence or wall along National Park or National Monument border boundaries that I know of. And places can be set up to allow animals pathways through it. With a few of these... that makes them much easier to monitor.

Yes, it is an effective ad, on *I believe* a small set of people. Now I am willing to be wrong about that. Beto is pretty to a political party that values that above almost all else. Beto is not serious, I do not think we have any political parties that are serious anymore.

But, in my opinion, the fact that Beto put out that ad means that Trump is winning. Maybe winning is too strong of a word. Trump has reframed the debate. Beto is having to fight Trump on Trump's terms. Beto's side might still win the issue (however you define that) but a year ago they did not think they would have to be fighting it here.

Had never seen the Barack Obama ad before. Intellectually I can see the power in it. Emotionally it was believable as a 60 year male movie star being paired in a romantic comedy with a 28 year starlet. I felt excluded watching a video about inclusion.

I agree that the border ad is powerful - especially for those who pay little attention past the headlines. "PowerPoint" was a good description.

This is an effective ad to show the choir. It will be most effective in the Democrat primaries. Beto is staking his claim to the nomination. Not my circus, not my monkeys. The counter ad would be one showing what illegal immigrants do to the environment around the border. Trump isn't afraid to make that ad. As for the real environmental impact of building a wall, mitigating that is part of the reason the cost of the wall is so high. It isn't being ignored.

First of all "THE WALL" is not, nor has ever been proposed a single contiguous wall from the Pacific to the Gulf of Mexico. NEVER

There are already sections of walls, fences that are in strategic crossing areas where people funnel themselves through. Walls/Fences on populated areas where cities on both sides of the border exist already exist. These have been working quite well in reducing traffic.

There are many areas that are geographically difficult to travel over. Areas with no roads. Those areas are sparsely inhabited, IF at all. Very few Illegal Aliens are coming through those places. Physically patrolling those areas and using drones/remote patrolling would suffice.

Walls that have been proposed also have made provisions for 'breaks' to allow animals to traverse....or mixed sections of wall. Solid from top to bottom in the populated areas, where animals avoid, to porous on the bottom in some sections.

What would REALLY REALLY work is to also have some G-Damned consequences for breaking into the country and breaking the laws. Instead of rewarding with all the freebies we can....we should have some real consequences.

To counter, show picture of canine cop murdered on Christmas by illegal gangbanger released repeatedly for previous crimes, who was so used to being here with no consequences that police found him using his ... God-damned social media.

Better yet, show his policedog, who was still wearing the Mrs. Claus dog costume he put on her when he was gunned down beside her.

Show the dog at his funeral.

Nobody sane is being swayed by this dishonest garbage. In the real world, we are tired of spending 70K a year on each illegal household, dealing with the uninsured motorist costs we have to pay, the stresses on our healthcare and zoning and public safety and schools, the effects of undermining the rule of law. The traffic accidents alone are staggering. The crimes committed are an outrage.

You have to live in an isolated bubble or ideological cage to misapprehend what is obvious to most Americans, the 70% who oppose the open borders claptrap. Of course many people do live in that bubble.

The policedog's name is Sam. She couldn't save her human partner. A wall might have.

"The wall" will be an evergreen to fight about through Trump's tenure, but will never make it beyond the built up areas in California, and there it may actually be needed.Also, the "nature" there is nothing to brag about as it is.

It's interesting, prof, that you find a PowerPoint slide show convincing.

Whenever I encounter such a slide show, my first response is "Here comes another bullshit corporate PR offensive larded up with fake do-gooderism." Because that's what PowerPoint is all about.

I had the misfortune of having produced a few of these slide shows during my corporate career. So, I've seen the sausage being made. It's not a pretty pic. There's a formula to making them and that formula is a nightmare of propaganda tactics and lies.

So, what is it about slide shows that seems compelling to you?

My first response to the tactic of using slide shows is: "The producer must the usual lying asshole."

tim in vermont said...While we are at it, we should probably ditch the Interstate Highway system, a shit ton of bridges, probably millions of view spoiling homes, untold numbers of wind turbines and solar panels.12/29/18, 7:12 AM

and then:I can see the impulse in the comments section is to deny the seriousness of the power of this message. You are losing right now.

I can't say whether you are right or wrong, but just because this ad speaks so specifically to you it doesn't mean people who disagree with you are losing. People who "deny" the seriousness simply aren't swayed by the same message as you. Who is going to win that argument and who is going to lose is yet to be seen.

"Those pretty pics were mostly taken far north of the border. From east Texas to the mountains on the California border, the border land is a flat desert gravel pit. It's not romantic at all."

You really don't know what you're talking about. I'm pretty sure those pictures were all taken in or around Big Bend NP -- which is right on the river and the border. It's a spectacularly beautiful, mountainous place:

The thing I see is that visa overstays is acknowledged as a main culprit in illegal entry. I would use that against him because the lefties will be attacking him over that. What lefties want is no borders at all. And I agree that while the ad is beautifully done, everything in it is a lie. A savvy political party would be attacking that constantly. Too bad we don’t have a party like that in America.

I've asked this before and don't recall seeing an answer. It is a serious question:

Why will the wall require eminent domain?

We already have a border, most of it with fences, patrol roads, border patrol posts and such. My understanding is that the US govt owns or has easements along all of the border.

I could see a possible need, maybe, to cross private lands to access the border during construction of the wall. I don't even know if that is required. Once constructed anyway, the wall would be on land the govt already has.

So can someone explain to me why more land would be required for the wall?

I think the talk of eminent domain is bullshit based on what I know, or think I know, about the border. I could be wrong though.

Democrats already owns the rich white leftist vote this ad is designed to appeal to. They need ads designed to win back the deplorables. That is how they won the mid-terms. They ran centrists. The Dem rep who who beat the rhino in my district ran so far to the right people thought he was the Republican candidate. So far most of the Democrat Presidential field is looking like they are trying to out left each other.

It's interesting how thoroughly and effectively the ad (which I haven't bothered watching – it's an ad) pushes Althouse's buttons, so much so that she pre-emptively lashes out at anyone who might disagree with her.

Typical lib ad from the man who would be President. I’d flip it on him. Show the dead from imported drugs, a tatted up cartel member, a dead cop killed by an illegal, lower wages due to illegal labor, crowded slums in LA with illegals. That’s the reality of illegal immigration; not a drone shot of a scenic river or a baby bear. Baby bear! Beto bear!

Here’s my 2016 comment, “All those buildings in Madison have really wrecked the environment on the isthmus.”

I don't see what the big deal about his pretending to be Hispanic (whatever that word means). If Bruce Jenner and become a woman simply by saying he is, why can't O'Rourke become an Hispanic the same way?

There is way more scientific evidence that he is Hispanic (just look at his name!) than that Bruce Jenner is a woman. Almost none versus absolutely none.

We've already heard argument Y. It's been out there and quite effective. But here comes argument X. What are you going to do about it? Repeating argument Y is not enough.

The thing is, what *can* you do about it. People have different opinions about things. I have friends who think Barack Obama was the greatest president this nation has ever had. I can't say anything to make them start thinking otherwise.

People do not have to agree with us. People think in different ways, and they are not always swayable. I may never agree that Beto O'Rourke is swoon-worthy, but many people will. They will find this ad effective. What can I do about it? Nothing. In years past, we would have someone come along and try to get people who swoon at Beto and try to give them a smaller wall if you vote Republican, or something like that. Or try to give us Marco Rubio, who also seems swoon worthy. It doesn't work. Playing defense all the time doesn't work.

For many people, there seem to be topics which, when raised, cause their logic and reasoning abilities to simply switch off. It's easiest for me to see this when the person's prejudices don't match mine, but it does make me wonder on which topics I might have similar short circuits.

MayBee: I can't say whether you are right or wrong, but just because this ad speaks so specifically to you it doesn't mean people who disagree with you are losing. People who "deny" the seriousness simply aren't swayed by the same message as you. Who is going to win that argument and who is going to lose is yet to be seen.

Yes, but it's not a good idea to dismiss the susceptibility of somebody like Althouse as a mere unconnected data point. Whose susceptibility to political ads has more predictive value - Althouse's, or mine? Althouse's, no question. Nobody would ever win an election based on tactics derived from focus groups filled with Angle-Dynes.

What is it that makes Robert Francis O'Rourke attractive as a candidate? Did I miss some hefty experience on his resume? Does he have an intellect that sets him apart? Has he created a trail of outstanding legislative results that greatly benefited his constituents?

I agree with the comments about windmill towers. These "wind farms" will become a major bone of contention and major federal programs to remove them before too long.

As for "the wall," showbiz is Trump's game, not mine, and I will trust to his judgment on that (as if I have any choice!).Anyway, his enemies are such that I am happy to accept anyone who will step up to fight them - warts and occasional wrongheadedness and all.

It reminds me of the ads meant to keep ANWR closed. 95% of NWR is barren tundra, but the ads showed only the pristine Brooks mountain range on its southern part. ANWR did remain off limits for drilling for a lot of years due in a large part due to those misleading ads, which goes to Althouse's point. It's the feelz, not the facts.

I was wondering how a wall works at a river border. What side does it go on? Or down the middle?

Anyway, I was interested to read that Julius Caesar had built a wall ten miles long and 16 feet high along the Rhone in Geneva to keep the Helvetians from migrating into Gaul because they were being pushed out by the Germans or Avars or Alans or something. Supposedly they turned back.

The author said most of Caesar's empire-building was just to keep barbarian migrants out of italy. Fancy that.

Yes, but it's not a good idea to dismiss the susceptibility of somebody like Althouse as a mere unconnected data point. Whose susceptibility to political ads has more predictive value - Althouse's, or mine? Althouse's, no question. Nobody would ever win an election based on tactics derived from focus groups filled with Angle-Dynes.

Ha!No, it's true, Althouse is susceptible to emotional ads that push her specific buttons. But would nobody win based on Angle-Dynes? Donald Trump won, and he seems tough as nails the way Angle-Dyne is.

But it seems a little self-serving to say, "This pushes my buttons and if you deny it's power you are losing!!" Althouse has been wrong before (she wanted the GOP to force Trump out by reducing the primary field. She almost bailed at the Entertainment Tonight vid) as have we all.In no way do I deny that people are very susceptible to emotion and being seen as being caring and good. That's the cooercive tactic Democrats run on. They determine what counts as open minded and good.

Regarding Mr. O'Rourke: We aren't underestimating his political prowess. He may indeed run in 2020 and will attract the votes that Sanders got in 2016 as well as those of the Never-Trumpers from both parties. And our country will become just another shit-hole.

Most people do not realize how few Spaniards actually went to South and Central America over the years of colonization. Lots and lots of Irish, though. Ambrosio O'Higgins, for example, born in Ballenary Ireland 1704, was the Spanish Viceroy over much of South America.

His son, Bernardo O'Higgins, is better known. He led a revolution, separate from but coordinated with Bolivar's, that threw Spain out of Chile, Peru and other large swaths of SA.

So yeah, if the O'Higgins's were Hispanic, why can't an O'Rourke be one?

And Alex Ocasio-Cortez? No ocasios in the Madrid phone book. Ocasio is the hispanicized version of O'Casey and common throughout South America.

I understand the susceptibility, too. There is almost nobody I would dare tell I ended up voting for Trump, let alone that I don't hate everything about him. I'm afraid of these good, kind people and their opinions-- afraid I would lose their friendship. I know they sway they have. They don't have enough to change my opinion, but they have enough to make me keep it to myself.

Counter with an ad showing that a wall would protect America's natural beauty. Show the contrast between the Mexico side and the American side. It's pretty stark in places. Show the trash and litter left in the desert environment by the passing illegals and the drug smugglers. Talk about the spending needed to maintain our national parks being used to support and deal with drug smugglers, addicts and to support illegal aliens. Then talk about our generous legal immigrant programs vs. uncontrolled caravans of immigrants trying to weaponize the compassion of Americans. Talk about wage suppression for entry level workers and low skill workers. Point out that black Americans are most affected. Talk about how much money is spent on welfare and medical care for illegals that could go to job programs to help young people, single moms and low-skill workers. And talk about how the Democrats have abandoned their traditional voters, blacks and working class people of every race in favor of illegal aliens because their rich donors want cheap help. Point out that those people can't afford to travel to our national parks and many have never seen them and never will.

Mary Beth said...If it's about the environment, it's time for a reply video showing the huge piles of trash, the migrants leave behind.

This is a good idea but here's why I think things like this don't work: Middle and upper middle class white liberals think black people and hispanic people don't really have full agency. They can't get IDs to vote, they can't be expected to get into college without affirmative action, they can't be expected to even be able to vote well without a straight ticket option on their ballot.So migrants leaving trash behind is just part of that.

Plus, look at the national mall after the women's march, or the grounds of a music festival the day after its over. Compare it to the tea-party marches. Who left a bigger mess?

Bob Boyd said " nd talk about how the Democrats have abandoned their traditional voters, blacks and working class people of every race in favor of illegal aliens because their rich donors want cheap help. Point out that those people can't afford to travel to our national parks and many have never seen them and never will."

"you are a fool if you underestimate what he is doing with this ad. Right now is the time to take him seriously. I can see the impulse in the comments section is to deny the seriousness of the power of this message. You are losing right now."

I wouldn't underestimate the gullibility of liberal women for a moment. Remembering O, I take any inexperienced smooth-talking Dem hustler seriously. Remembering Althouse's vote for O, her rationalizations of constitutional SSM, and her cruel partiality on Kavanaugh, I know full well anything at all can become an "argument." Argument is whatever "speaks to" such women at any particular time.

By the same token, anything that doesn't fit their tender sensibilities can be dismissed as "no argument" or "you are losing."

Example: above, commenters point out that the environmental argument against the wall is made in bad faith, since it does not address the greater environmental impact of illegal immigration. This 1. adds to old anti-illegal argument Y, 2. meets the phony enviro anti-wall argument on its own terms; and 3. refutes it with a stronger claim about environmental costs. Of course, I have no illusions abut "arguments" or "evidence" having any particular effect. Fortunately, Trump knows that.

I've never been a fan of the wall idea, but I think the recent attempts at political theatre have made the wall more likely rather than less likely. Consistently enforcing our laws would be a good start to curbing illegal immigration. How about taking action against the people who are actively encouraging it by spreading misinformation to uneducated gullible people? How about holding the organizers of the "caravan" responsible for the misery and chaos they have caused? What about the company that did that Superbowl ad a few years ago romanticizing illegally crossing the border and others like them? How about those advocating "sanctuary" cities? What about our spineless legislators that are keeping the "Dreamers" in limbo? Aren't they in varying extents responsible for the recent tragic deaths of 2 innocent children? One thing I'll say for Trump is at least he's being honest and clear about the way "migrants" will be treated. Maybe we should start pointing the finger at those responsible for this mess instead of building a wall.

Blogger tim in vermont said... There is a house that is basically collapsed from heavy snow near me, and rotting away that was built right on the border, half. in the US, half in Canada. It’s not unique at all.

While the house may be on private property, I suspect that the feds have some sort of easement through the house and land, don't they?

This may be the result of eminent domain in the past. My question is why additional eminent domain will be required?

Good point. Wildlife will be blocked from crossing the border if a wall is built unless the animal is a bird that can fly over the wall. Tens of millions of animals are now killed by hunters and trappers every year. There is no route of escape for them. The hunters and trappers should all be rounded up, and deported to Mexico, if you ask me.

Blogger David Begley said... Typical lib ad from the man who would be President. I’d flip it on him. Show the dead from imported drugs, a tatted up cartel member, a dead cop killed by an illegal, lower wages due to illegal labor, crowded slums in LA with illegals. That’s the reality of illegal immigration . . .

But isn't the ad aimed at people who have do not have to experience that, David?

All I ask for, is an opportunity to interview what will be the most interesting voter of the century; an Obama-Obama-Trump-Beto voter. That's all I want. The chance to ask pointed questions of someone who voted for Obama, and then Trump, and then O'Rourke. And figure out what motivated them.

Donald Trump has previously brought up the deaths of birds from wind turbines, and he has not been well received. Appealing to people who just care so darn much via environmentalism is very tricky.

Here's one example in the form of a fact check. It mostly just poo-poohs his number, rather than caring that eagles get killed: Trump has cited bird deaths before in his complaints about wind power, once falsely claiming that turbines “kill more than 1 million birds a year,” which we’ve previously debunked. According to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, annual bird deaths from turbines range from as low as 21,000 to 679,000

As we've all experienced, people simply do not care if beautiful birds are killed by wind turbines, because wind turbines are a liberal good.

Blogger Cacimbo Cacimbo said..."Democrats already owns the rich white leftist vote this ad is designed to appeal to. They need ads designed to win back the deplorables. That is how they won the mid-terms. They ran centrists. The Dem rep who who beat the rhino in my district ran so far to the right people thought he was the Republican candidate. So far most of the Democrat Presidential field is looking like they are trying to out left each other"

Not my experience at all, at least with Senate seats. In the two states that we live in, the Dens won seats that should probably have gone to Republicans by spending far more money on advertising, much of it highly misleading, to slime their opponents. My guess is that when the financial reports and analysis are out, both Dens will have had at least twice as much spent on their behalf. Here in AZ, Sinema, far left loonie as they come, was running 2-3 times the ads on TV that McSally was, and most of them were highly deceptive. In MT, Tester started running a heavy cycle of ads in Jan long before he had an opponent, and then shifted into an even heavier rotation of highly misleading ads once he had an opponent. For both of these candidates, their ads were running so frequently that you would often see two of their ads sandwiching one for their opponents on a commercial break. And this seemed to be the case for a majority of commercial breaks in prime time on the main networks. I have never seen this before. The Tester image ads, run before the Rep nominee was established, were similar this election to the previous, but much less frequent in the previous. But what changed this time was the viciousness and frequency of those ads this time, after he had an opponent. My guess is that he ran 3x-4x ads this election cycle as compared to six years earlier.

These close races weren't won by grass roots activists, but by the bicoastal megarich, living in gated communities, and spending their fortunes around the country buying political offices. And, yes, by a lot of cheating in the collection and counting of ballots (despite massively outspending her opponent, I think that hard leftist Sinema in AZ probably won, in the end, by cheating her way over the top with late found ballots).

In my area, Dems won seats by outspending and out-advertising, too. Michael Bloomberg put a lot of money into my area. The Democrats did seem pretty centrist, but then Donald Trump won Michigan. One candidate who won had worked on the auto bailout, so that was a big feather in her cap for this area. Otherwise, the Senate, the Governor, and the other Congressional seats had way more ads and ran on fixing the roads and pre-existing conditions in health care, which seemed to be the overwhelming message.The most progressive people running for congress didn't win the primaries.

tim in vermont: They ran a perfectly formed pretty boy representing elite interests in France to counter the deplorables. Worked out great!

Uh, it did work. He not only got elected, he got elected by successfully branding himself as an "outsider". That the French are unhappy with what they voted for doesn't change the fact that a ludicrously phoney-baloney branding campaign *worked* for the globocrat party pushing him, denying power to any "deplorable" alternative.

It worked here, too, not so long ago, for two long terms. It remains to be seen if Trump is an anomaly, with no meaningful restructuring of party machinery or a bench of potential future leaders to keep the "deplorable" program going after him. If so, then running pretty boys may very well work again.

Sure, the strategy won't work forever (nothing does). Maybe a tipping point in popular dissatisfaction has been reached. But it could very well continue to work for a long time, if the opposition isn't organized and committed to the "long march" of recapturing and holding all the institutional power that has been conceded to the globocrats (for want of a better word) over the last century.

HAHAHA, he's going for the tired refrain of "sensible immigration reform!" Voters have been sold that BS now for 30 years with the promise of a wall they never got. Overstaying visas is certainly a problem, but giving out more of them through guest worker programs will only exacerbate the problem while adding a second class of citizenship.

We don't need reform. We need enforcement of current laws. When people are found to have overstayed their visas, send them home, but instead we give them sanctuary. In California, an immigrant is more likely to get a pardon than an American citizen simply because the immigrant isn't a citizen. That's not justice. The wall isn't a symbol of division. It is a symbol of our governments willingness to do what is said it would do. It is that simple.

Sure, the strategy won't work forever (nothing does). Maybe a tipping point in popular dissatisfaction has been reached. But it could very well continue to work for a long time, if the opposition isn't organized and committed to the "long march" of recapturing and holding all the institutional power that has been conceded to the globocrats (for want of a better word) over the last century.

We are in the middle of a very interesting time that feels almost like an experiment:How good can things be in America by all measures vs how worked up can people be into believing we are in terrible times.

Record low unemployment, lower carbon emissions, few terrorist attacks, reduction in armed conflicts around the world, low gas prices, gay marriage, attention to criminal justice reform vs. this is a dangerous time for brown and black people and white people and how do we sleep at night

One bad thing that is actually happening- opiod and drug overdoses and suicides increases barely gets a blip- because the white people who are experiencing them aren't who the media wants to help.

I think that Beto would be toast against Trump in a general election. Trump just has to start calling him Bobby O'Roarke, emphasizing his fake claim to be Hispanic, splitting off at least some of the Hispanic vote. And Beto doesn't have the ethnic immunity that Obama had. He is a rich white guy with little real experience doing much of anything. A lightweight. Much better if the Dems could find a real decently handsome Hispanic, like, for example, George P Bush (who is, unfortunately for them, a Republican). Or even one of the Castro brothers. I think that the sort of ethnic immunity enjoyed by Obama can only be utilized once, so Booker and Harris probably won't get to use it overmuch, esp against Trump. Maybe Michelle or Oprah could, but neither appear to be running.

MayBee said...Donald Trump has previously brought up the deaths of birds from wind turbines, and he has not been well received. Appealing to people who just care so darn much via environmentalism is very tricky.

Uh; Donald Trump's concern over migratory bird safety came up in the context of his personally protesting the possible appearance of wind turbines off the coast of his Aberdeenshire golf resort in Scotland.

"you are a fool if you underestimate what he is doing with this ad. Right now is the time to take him seriously. I can see the impulse in the comments section is to deny the seriousness of the power of this message. You are losing right now."

I have a prediction. Somebody is going to win the Democrat primary and that person will be wielding a powerful message.

Chuck said...MayBee said...Donald Trump has previously brought up the deaths of birds from wind turbines, and he has not been well received. Appealing to people who just care so darn much via environmentalism is very tricky.

Uh; Donald Trump's concern over migratory bird safety came up in the context of his personally protesting the possible appearance of wind turbines off the coast of his Aberdeenshire golf resort in Scotland.

OK.How is that different than worrying about the aesthetics and impact on migratory species w/r/t a wall ala Beto?

People who respond to an ad like this do so because of the way it makes them feel about themselves.To win them over Trump needs to provide them a way to feel just as good about themselves for supporting increased border security.

What is the environmental impact of the current illegal border crossings and the law enforcement activities to deal with them? Much greater than building a wall that directs the activity through carefully-designed entry points.

Yes. It's an effective ad. McDonald's workers who made $8 an hour and who are now making $10 an hour, won't have the money to bring their kids to see the natural beauty of the border until they are making around $12 an hour, and even then there are plenty of other places they could go.

A California cop was just killed by a man here illegally from Mexico. I'm reading he was just now captured.

Let's discuss why this is not HUGE news when we are in the middle of a government shut down over border security. I mean, I'm all for discussing the real need for a wall and whether it's good for the environment. But can we also discuss sanctuary cities? If the wall isn't good for whatever creature is crossing the Rio Grande, are Sanctuary Cities good for Americans?

"A wall of whirling blades would generate power and make an excellent deterrent."

What about a 2,000 mile long row of wind mills with wall between them? It doesn't address migrating animals but it should quash the aesthetics argument. The dems love those crappy things and they have to go somewhere so why not? How could they object?

Apologies if this has already been said, but if the border is so beautiful and environmentally pristine, why is it only a tourist attraction for illegal immigrants? Why aren’t masses of Americans traveling to the border each summer with their kids to view its majesty?

David Hardy cleared his throat. Everyone turned toward the Chaplain, and Hardy seemed embarrassed. Then he smiled. "I always knew study of the classics would have some practical value. Are any of you familiar with Plato's Republic? No, of course not. Well, on the first page, Socrates, conceded to be the most persuasive man who ever lived, is told by his friends that either Socrates will stay overnight with them, or his friends will compel him to do so by force. Socrates asks reasonably if there is not an alternative—can he not persuade them to let him go home. The reply, of course, is that he won't be able to because his friends won't listen to him."

Letting me be CRUELLY NEUTRAL but in an effective way, and not while ones nethers are still tingling.

1). This ad, even if effective, is way too early for the general election. By 2020, it will be OLD NEWS. Ergo, this niche ad is aimed at wealthy old liberal women et. al. This is Robert's move to the nomination.

2). This will not persuade anyone who thinks immigration is important. As noted: they will not listen, just as Althouse didn't listen to any criticism of Caught Blathering Ford. Her mind was made up at the whisper of 'abortion'.

3). This might be persuasive to the middle. But Trump will be putting every murdered blonde, cop and kid killed by an illegal. Althouse assumes that Robert 'Fake Hispanic' O'Rourke, will fight against a pell. This is not the case.

4). Want to know another devastatingly effective ad? The 84 Lumber Super Bowl ad. If a mere ad could scuttle the idea of the Wall, that one would have.

IT. DIDN'T!

We are FURTHER toward the idea of the Wall, not less inclined toward one.

5) This ad is a fund raising ad for the Faithful. This same group would oppose the Wall if it was free. If it had zero environmental impact. If it was 100%!kid safe and made of post recyclable materials AND offered free fusion power to the masses.

6). The big problem for Dems is everyone knows that point 5 exists. That is a deep hole to dig ones way out of.

The guy who killed the cop who was here illegally had two prior DUIs and known gang affiliations. But rich people need their cheap nannies who don't look like them (so they don't feel bad about the way they pay them/treat them)

If, as some here have claimed, the areas depicted are not part of the border area why not submit a counter ad showing their true location and ask what else the ad is lying about. If the areas are truly part of the border area, why not an ad that says that there are no plans to build a wall here and ask what else the ad is lying about.

Obama="magnificent" republican Chuck: "Donald Trump's concern over migratory bird safety came up in the context of his personally protesting the possible appearance of wind turbines off the coast of his Aberdeenshire golf resort in Scotland."

Lefties and lefty allies like LLR Chuck hate it when Trump goes Alinsky on LLR Chuck's beloved lefties and forces them to live up to their own rules or be exposed as hypocrites!

FIDO: "1). This ad, even if effective, is way too early for the general election. By 2020, it will be OLD NEWS. Ergo, this niche ad is aimed at wealthy old liberal women et. al. This is Robert's move to the nomination."

Anyone remember Reagan's Star Wars program? The liberal argument against it was that 1) it wouldn't work and 2) it might cause the Soviets to launch a preeminent nuclear strike on the US. As it turned out, the Star Wars program was an important factor in that cascade of events which led to the break up of the USSR........Not every unintended consequence is adverse.

MayBee said... Chuck said...MayBee said...Donald Trump has previously brought up the deaths of birds from wind turbines, and he has not been well received. Appealing to people who just care so darn much via environmentalism is very tricky.

Uh; Donald Trump's concern over migratory bird safety came up in the context of his personally protesting the possible appearance of wind turbines off the coast of his Aberdeenshire golf resort in Scotland.

OK.How is that different than worrying about the aesthetics and impact on migratory species w/r/t a wall ala Beto?

Maybe no different at all. I don't know; I don't like Trump or O'Rourke. I don't try to find common ground with either one. I'd hate to have to choose one in a general election.

But I hope we can agree on one thing, which is that while "aesthetic" concerns are expressed by both Trump and O'Rourke, Trump's main concern in Scotland was his personal interest in a golf resort property. And O'Rourke's concern is a general/civic concern, not personally financial.

Beto's concern is a general/civic concern? Haha... Beto is saying things to build a long-term political career, which is to say it is all about his own personal gain, measured not only by dollars, but political power.

But I hope we can agree on one thing, which is that while "aesthetic" concerns are expressed by both Trump and O'Rourke, Trump's main concern in Scotland* was his personal interest in a golf resort property. And O'Rourke's concern is a general/civic concern, not personally financial.

I assume O'Rourke general concern is that he would like to be elected to a higher office than the one he's in. That's a personal concern.

(* Trump has not brought this up only concerning Scotland, but also in the US.)

But I hope we can agree on one thing, which is that while "aesthetic" concerns are expressed by both Trump and O'Rourke, Trump's main concern in Scotland was his personal interest in a golf resort property. And O'Rourke's concern is a general/civic concern, not personally financial.

'a general/civic concern'? Not a political ploy? Chuck, you are a parody of yourself.

"Assuming he is the candidate I don't know how it'll play in the general, but by then I figure he'll have moved to the center and started pretending to oppose illegal immigration."

-- Or he'll use code like "common sense immigration reform," or the like to pretend to be opposing it so that moderates, conservative Dems and liberal Republicans will think he means it to peel their votes like nearly every candidate has done for awhile now.

Ann Althouse said...This is an extremely effective ad. Don't bury your head in the sand.

Yeah, yeah. You buried your head in the Sanders and went on and on about how effective Bernie's ad was too -- the one that used Simon and Garfunkle's "America." Look where that got you prediction-wise.

"Middle and upper middle class white liberals think black people and hispanic people don't really have full agency. "

-- It isn't just that. Look how long it took San Franscisco to hire people to literally clean up human feces throughout the city. It took them losing two multi-million dollar conferences/whatevers before they thought: "Hey, maybe human crap in the street is a bad idea?"

Most of the middle and upper class people simply don't see litter and dirt as a problem they really have to face. They pay taxes, God damn it, why isn't someone ALREADY cleaning that up?